[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NATIONAL SECURITY: THREATS AT OUR BORDERS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 23, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-117
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-641 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Ranking Minority Member
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
TIM WALBERG, Michigan Columbia
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee JIM COOPER, Tennessee
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas MATT CARTWRIGHT, Pennsylvania
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
RON DeSANTIS, Florida TED LIEU, California
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina BONNIE WATSON COLEMAN, New Jersey
KEN BUCK, Colorado STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
MARK WALKER, North Carolina MARK DeSAULNIER, California
ROD BLUM, Iowa BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
JODY B. HICE, Georgia PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma MICHELLE LUJAN GRISHAM, New Mexico
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin
WILL HURD, Texas
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Jennifer Hemingway, Staff Director
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Troy Stock, Staff Director, Subcommittee on Transportation and Public
Assets
Dimple Shah, Counsel
Alexa Armstrong, Professional Staff Member
Willie Marx, Clerk
Subcommittee on National Security
RON DeSANTIS, Florida, Chairman
JOHN L. MICA, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts,
JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee Ranking Member
JODY B. HICE, Georgia ROBIN KELLY, Illinois
STEVE RUSSELL, Oklahoma, Vice Chair BRENDA L. LAWRENCE, Michigan
WILL HURD, Texas TED LIEU, California
------
Subcommittee on Government Operations
MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina, Chairman
JIM JORDAN, Ohio GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia,
TIM WALBERG, Michigan, Vice Chair Ranking Minority Member
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICK MULVANEY, South Carolina Columbia
KEN BUCK, Colorado WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
GLENN GROTHMAN, Wisconsin STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 23, 2016................................... 1
WITNESSES
Mr. Ronald D. Vitiello, Acting Chief, U.S. Border Patrol, Customs
and Border Protection
Oral Statement............................................... 7
Written Statement............................................ 9
Mr. Steven C. McCraw, Director, Texas Department of Public Safety
Oral Statement............................................... 20
Written Statement............................................ 22
Mr. Brandon Judd, President, National Border Patrol Council
Oral Statement............................................... 41
Written Statement............................................ 43
Ms. Jan C. Ting, Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley
School of Law
Oral Statement............................................... 48
Written Statement............................................ 50
Ms. Eleanor Acer, Senior Director, Refugee Protection, Human
Rights First
Oral Statement............................................... 57
Written Statement............................................ 59
APPENDIX
U.S. Border Parol Nationwide Apprehensions, FY 2015- FY 2016 as
of March 3, 2016, Entered by Chairman DeSantis................. 88
U.S.C.I.S. Credible Fear Nationality Reports from FY 2014, FY
2015, and FY 2016 Q1, Entered by Chairman DeSantis............. 91
U.S.C.I.S Credible Fear Data and Affirmative Asylum Case Data,
Entered by Chairman DeSantis................................... 100
Written Statement of Representative Gerald Connolly, Entered by
Representative Connolly........................................ 101
NATIONAL SECURITY: THREATS AT OUR BORDERS
----------
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on National Security, joint with the
Subcommittee on Government Operations,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 9:00 a.m., in
Room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ron DeSantis
[chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security] presiding.
Present from Subcommittee on National Security:
Representatives DeSantis, Mica, Hice, Lynch, and Kelly.
Present from Subcommittee on Government Operations:
Representatives Meadows, Walberg, Buck, Grothman, and Connolly.
Mr. DeSantis. The Subcommittee on National Security and
the Subcommittee on Government Operations will come to order.
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess
at any time.
The United States confronts a wide array of threats at its
borders, ranging from terrorists seeking to harm the United
States to transnational criminals smuggling drugs and
counterfeit goods to foreign nationals entering illegally in
order to work in the United States unlawfully.
America's borders and ports are busy places. Every year,
tens of millions of cargo containers and hundreds of millions
of lawful travelers enter the country, while tens of thousands
of illegal cargo entries are seized and hundreds of thousands
of unauthorized migrants are arrested or denied entry.
At the same time, hundreds of thousands of illegal
immigrants evade detection to enter the United States
unlawfully and thousands of kilograms of illegal drugs and
other contraband are smuggled into the country.
Recent terrorist attacks in the United States and Europe
and worldwide have highlighted the national security challenges
that we face. The November terrorist attacks in Paris
transformed Europe's migration crisis into a security debate,
spurring calls for European nations to reevaluate their open
border policies. Yesterday's terrorist attacks in Brussels
demonstrate the strength of the Islamic State, but also
highlight the policies of European nations that have
facilitated the establishment and growth of Islamic communities
within these countries that are parallel to rather than
integrated in Western society.
Concerns about borders are not limited to Europe. Recent
reports state that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection has
apprehended several members of known Islamist terrorist
organizations crossing the southern border in recent years.
The Texas Department of Public Safety has reported that
border security agencies have arrested several Somali
immigrants crossing the southern border who are known members
of al-Shabaab, the terrorist group that launched the deadly
attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, as well
as other Somali-based groups, including one funded by Osama bin
Laden.
The Texas DPS stated that it had come into contact in
recent years with ``special interest aliens'' who come from
countries with known ties to terrorists or where terrorist
groups thrive.
In all, immigrants from over 30 countries throughout Asia
and the Middle East have been arrested over the past few years
trying to enter the United States illegally in the Rio Grande
Valley. Now the committee has obtained information from the
Customs and Border Protection that confirms thousands of
Indians, Chinese, Bangladeshi, and Sri Lankans have been
apprehended at our borders in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and the
first quarter of 2016. This data also shows that individuals
have sought to enter the United States illegally from
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Turkey, and beyond.
One potential vulnerability that such individuals could
attempt to exploit is our Nation's generous asylum system.
Aliens making asylum claims after they are apprehended by
Border Patrol for entering illegally are being released into
American society by the Obama administration.
The number of aliens making credible fear claims has
increased exponentially in recent years. According to
information provided to the committee by USCIS, the number of
credible fear claims increased from 4,995 in fiscal year 2008
to 51,001 in fiscal year 2014, an increase of 921 percent.
Additionally, DHS is approving those claims the vast
majority of the time. In fact, the approval rate is 87 percent.
By claiming to have a credible fear, these aliens set in
motion a process that can forestall their removal while
allowing them to remain in the United States potentially for
years. Dangerous individuals such as gang members, cartel
operatives, and even supporters and members of terrorist
groups, could exploit the system. Such individuals could
attempt to enter illegally. And if they successfully evade the
Border Patrol, they can remain in the United States. If they
get caught, they can make a credible fear claim and likely be
released.
During a recent visit by staff to El Paso, Border Patrol
and ICE confirmed that they are seeing increased numbers of
Bangladeshi, Somalis, Pakistanis, and other nationals of
countries of concern coming across the southern border and
claiming credible fear.
These anecdotal reports are supported by information that
USCIS provided the committee that states that thousands of
nationals of these and other countries have claimed credible
fear in recent years. For these reasons, Texas DPS has stated
that ``an unsecure border with Mexico is the State's most
significant vulnerability as it provides criminals and would-be
terrorists from around the world a reliable means to enter
Texas and the Nation undetected. This is especially concerning
today, in light of the recent terrorist attacks and schemes
around the world.''
I thank our witnesses for their testimony today and look
forward to examining issues related to national security
threats at our border and what can be done to combat this
growing problem.
I now recognize Mr. Lynch, the ranking member of the
Subcommittee on National Security, for his opening statement.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank the panelists for helping the
committee with its work.
I would like to also thank Chairman Meadows and Ranking
Member Connolly for holding this hearing as well to examine
immigration and border security.
I would also like to thank our witnesses again for your
expertise in this area.
As reported by the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees, we are witnessing the largest global forced
displacement of people since World War II. Conflict,
persecution, violence, and flagrant human rights violations
have forcibly displaced nearly 60 million people worldwide,
including 19.5 million refugees, 38 million internally
displaced persons, and 1.8 million asylum-seekers. That is a 60
percent increase from 37.5 million displaced people recorded by
UNHCR a decade ago.
Over 50 percent of the refugee population is now made up of
children below 18 years of age, marking the highest child
refugee figure in more than 10 years. In 2014, over 34,000
asylum applications were submitted by unaccompanied or
separated children across 82 countries. That is the highest
count on record since the agency began collecting this data in
2006.
The war in Syria and the rise of the Islamic State have
been the driving factors behind the unprecedented surge in
global displacement. Approximately 7.6 million people have been
internally displaced within Syria alone, and more than 4
million refugees have fled the country since the start of the
conflict in 2011.
The stark increase in global forced displacement coupled
with devastating terrorist attacks in Paris, San Bernardino,
Beirut, Istanbul, and Ankara in Turkey, and just yesterday in
Brussels, Belgium, have led to ongoing policy debates in the
U.S. over how best to prevent terrorists from infiltrating our
legitimate immigration processes.
This is a critical and necessary examination that must
entail fact-based oversight of our existing immigration and
border security policies across-the-board. In the interest of
national security, it must also be undertaken in a manner that
continues to reflect our longstanding international commitment
as a signatory to the 1951 Geneva Convention to protecting
highly vulnerable individuals who are fleeing from persecution
and violence, and as stated in a recent letter to Congress
signed by 22 U.S. national security leaders from Democratic and
Republican administrations alike, and I quote, ``We believe
that America can and should continue to provide refuge to those
fleeing violence and persecution without compromising the
security and safety of our Nation. To do otherwise would
undermine our core objective of combating terrorism.''
These leaders included General David Petraeus, the former
Commander of U.S. Central Command; George Schultz, the former
Secretary of State under President Reagan; and former NATO
Supreme Allied Commander James Stavridis, who is now at Tufts
University.
In furtherance of this committee's efforts to review our
national security framework, Congressman Steve Russell of this
committee and I recently traveled on an oversight mission to
Turkey, Jordan, and Lebanon to assess and even participate in
the vetting processes required for Syrian refugee settlement to
the United States.
After visiting refugee camps along the Turkish-Syrian and
Jordanian-Syrian borders, and meeting with various refugee
families, we discovered that the vast majority, between 70 and
80 percent, are not even interested in resettlement at all.
Rather, they seek to stay in the neighboring host countries,
Turkey, Lebanon, and Jordan, in the hopes of returning home.
The overwhelming preference of these families is to stay
close to Syria, indicating that one of our primary national
security goals should be to ensure that financially strained
host countries and international humanitarian agencies have the
resources necessary to provide a dignified life for their
refugee populations in place.
Regarding the vetting process itself, I must say that prior
to our oversight visit, I had my serious doubts about the
effectiveness of vetting conducted in virtual warzone
environments, and I supported both the Republican and
Democratic measures to enhance the vetting process.
I would note that the delegation arrived in Beirut only
several months after a double suicide bombing in that city that
killed over 40 people. We arrived in Istanbul only 4 days after
a suicide bombing in a central square that killed 10 German
tourists. And we left Kilis province only 1 day before a rocket
attack fired from Syria hit a Kilis school.
However, for the small percentage of families who do seek
resettlement to the United States, what we found in our
oversight of vetting centers in all three host countries was a
multilayered vetting process that is robust and extensive. It
is conducted by specialized U.N. and U.S. agency personnel
trained to ensure that only the most thoroughly vetted and the
most vulnerable, or 1 percent, of Syrian refugee applicants are
admitted for resettlement.
They are also very cautious in their work, given that any
misstep in the vetting process could not only pose a grave
danger to the American public, but also effectively halt
resettlement for millions of legitimate refugees.
It is this type of fact-based oversight that should guide
our review of immigration and border patrol procedures across-
the-board. This is absolutely imperative at a time when our
Federal agencies responsible for securing homeland security
face severe budgetary constraints and every homeland security
dollar must be allocated toward the most critical national
security risks.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for holding this hearing,
and I look forward to discussing these and other issues with
our witnesses, and I yield back the balance of our time.
Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
chairman of the Subcommittee on Government Operations, Mr.
Meadows, for his opening statement.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
leadership.
And thank you, Ranking Member Mr. Lynch, for your not only
fact-based willingness to look at the record, but also your
willingness to work in a bipartisan manner to address this
serious issue.
From the surge of unaccompanied minors and family units
from Central America coming across our border to the ongoing
Syrian refugee crisis, as well as the fiancee visa that was
erroneously issued to the San Bernardino terrorist Tashfeen
Malik, there seems to be no shortage of immigration issues that
impact our national security. So today's hearing takes a closer
look at the national security implications at our Nation's
porous borders.
Now, I want to emphasize that it is a national security
interest that brings us here today. There are plenty of other
rhetoric and discussion that can go on as it relates to
immigration and immigration policy. But, indeed, this is
looking at not only immigration but at border security and how
it affects national security.
It has been in the forefront of much of the political
discussion in recent months. The Department of Homeland
Security officials have often indicated to the American public
that our borders are more secure today than they have ever
been. I think many of us have heard that. They tout the low
number of apprehensions as proof, which seems to be a little
counterintuitive to me.
In fact, the GAO, the Government Accountability Office, has
indicated that the DHS has no official metrics in place to
measure whether our border is secure or not. So those
statements are very difficult to comprehend, if there are no
metrics in place.
Representatives from the Border Patrol tell us that the
situation at the border is exactly the opposite of what the
administration claims.
Undoubtedly, the United States has a proud history of
providing refuge to victims of persecution and will continue to
be unwavering in our commitment to be that beacon of freedom
and hope for those facing persecution around the world. But
when this administration fails to enforce our immigration laws,
or turns a blind eye to the rampant fraud and abuse while
rubberstamping--rubberstamping--credible fear claims at a rate
as high as 92 percent, the integrity of our system is
undermined. Our generosity is taken advantage of and our
national security is at risk.
We should seek to protect the integrity of our immigration
system from fraudulent claims made by those seeking to do us
harm or subvert our rule of law. Individuals who seek to
defraud the asylum process make a mockery of those who are
truly persecuted, for those who are fleeing from fear.
The United States is one of the most generous nations in
the world, and our asylum system is an extension of that
generosity. And yet, various organizations are coaching people
to claim credible fear in order to avoid deportation.
By invoking the credible fear claim, most aliens enter into
a process by which they await proceedings before an immigration
judge, which at the very least buys them more time in the
United States. It often takes years, multiple years, before
those court dates take place.
In the meantime, the alien is allowed to obtain a work
permit, go about their business in the United States and,
indeed, could embed in our communities. It seems to me that the
word is out that claiming credible fear is the way to go.
The numbers sure say that much to me, and as we look at the
credible fear claims that have grown exponentially in recent
years, as Chairman DeSantis mentioned in his opening remarks,
one of my biggest concerns is that nefarious actors have taken
advantage of our generosity.
Gang members, cartel operators, supporters of terrorist
groups can game the system and make use of credible fear to
remain here in the United States. Even according to DHS, aliens
with known or claimed ties to cartels and terrorist groups have
been apprehended along the border claiming credible fear.
The data this committee has received confirms that the
Border Patrol is encountering migrants from Afghanistan,
Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Somalia, and Turkey. Now this is coming across our southern
border, and these are just the individuals that were
apprehended.
So what about all of those who were never seen by law
enforcement at all and make it into the interior of our
country?
I hope to hear from our witnesses today on their assessment
of the current holes that might enable these bad actors to take
advantage of our system. Most importantly, I would like to hear
what should be done to address these deficiencies and help
ensure the safety of the American public.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
enter the following documents into the record. One would be
U.S. Border Patrol nationwide apprehensions for 2015 and 2016.
The other is the USCIS credible fear nationality reports for
fiscal year 2014, 2015, and for quarter one of 2016, and the
USCIS credible fear data and affirmative asylum case data. I
ask unanimous consent.
Mr. DeSantis. Without objection.
Mr. Meadows. And with that, I would yield back, Mr.
Chairman. I thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. I will hold the record open for 5
legislative days for any members who would like to submit a
written statement.
We will now recognize our panel of witnesses. I am pleased
to welcome Mr. Ronald Vitiello, Acting Chief of the U.S. Border
Patrol at the U.S. Customs and Border Protection; Mr. Steven
McCraw, director of the Texas Department of Public Safety; Mr.
Brandon Judd, president of the National Border Patrol Council;
Professor Jan Ting, professor at the Temple University Beasley
School of Law; and Ms. Eleanor Acer, senior director of refugee
protection at Human Rights First. Welcome all.
Pursuant to committee rules, all witnesses will be sworn in
before they testify.
If you can please rise and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Thank you. Please be seated.
All witnesses answered in the affirmative.
In order to allow time for discussion, please limit your
oral testimony to 5 minutes. Your entire written statement will
be made part of the record.
Mr. Vitiello, you are up. Five minutes.
WITNESS STATEMENTS
STATEMENT OF RONALD D. VITIELLO
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you, Chairman DeSantis, Chairman
Meadows, Ranking Member Lynch, and distinguished members of the
subcommittees. It is an honor to appear before you today to
discuss the role of the United States Border Patrol in
protecting national security and defending threats against our
border.
During my law enforcement career of more than 30 years in
the U.S. Border Patrol, the border environment has changed not
only the intentions, tactics, and capabilities of our
adversaries, but also in our resources, our capabilities, and
our operational approach to securing the border.
Today, we focus not only on responding to the complex and
rapidly changing border conditions, but we also work to
decrease the risk and potential threats. We do this through
strategic and risk-based deployment of resources, and by
expanding and increasing our capabilities through intelligence,
information-sharing, partnerships, and operational
collaboration.
In all border environments--land, air, and sea--technology
is critical to security operations. Effective fixed and mobile
surveillance and detection systems provide increased
situational awareness of illicit cross-border activity.
Advanced technology also increases our ability to identify
changes in the border environment and rapidly respond as
appropriate to emerging threats along and approaching our
borders.
Detecting and interdicting terrorists and their weapons
will also be a focus priority of the border security mission.
Also, the illegal cross-border activities of transnational
criminal organizations involved in cross-border trafficking of
guns, currency, human smuggling, and drugs pose a continuous
threat to border security and public safety.
Responding to the continued flow of unaccompanied alien
children and families across the Southwest border is also a
priority.
The border regions in the United States are most secure
when using a whole-of-government approach that leverages
interagency and international partnerships as a force
multiplier. The Border Patrol is an active participant in the
DHS Southern Border and Approaches Campaign, and has a leading
role in the Joint Task Force-West, an integrated operational
approach to addressing the threat of transnational criminal
organizations along and approaching the Southwest border. This
effort directs DHS resources in a much more collaborative
fashion to address the broad and complex range of threats and
challenges, including illegal migration; smuggling of illegal
drugs, humans and arms trafficking; illicit financing of such
operations; and the threat of terrorist exploitation of border
vulnerabilities.
The creation of the task force increases information-
sharing between Federal, State, local, and international law
enforcement agencies; improves situational awareness; enhances
border-wide interdiction operations; and improves our ability
to counter transnational threats and associated violence.
Using a risk-based and intelligence-driven approach, the
Border Patrol and more broadly CBP and DHS will continue to
enhance our efforts, anticipate and respond to threats to
national security, and ensure the safety of the U.S. public.
The continued focus on unity of effort, in conjunction with
intelligence and operational integration, the deployment of
advanced technology, enhances our situational awareness, better
enables us to effectively and efficiently detect, respond to,
and disrupt threats in the Nation's border regions and
approaches to the secure the homeland.
In closing, let me state the obvious. It is the men and
women of CBP and the Border Patrol agents who face the threats
that we will discuss today. Agents deploy in all manner of
weather and rough terrain 24/7/365.
I am blessed to be in their leadership cadre. I am grateful
for their dedication and professionalism. The Nation is safer,
and the communities that they serve are better protected
because of their efforts. They have my unwavering support and
continued effort to let them do their jobs in the safest manner
possible.
Thank you for having me as a witness today. I look forward
to the opportunity to testify and your questions.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Mr. McCraw, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF STEVEN C. McCRAW
Mr. McCraw. Mr. Chairman, members, thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today. Steve McCraw, Texas
Department of Public Safety.
I want to echo a few comments that the chief made, but I
would be remiss of two things if I didn't first mention the
Governor's comments yesterday on the aftermath of the Brussels
attack, the cowardly attack by terrorists.
He pointed out that our hearts and prayers are with the
Brussels victims. Our minds must realize the consequences of
open borders. And our resolve must be security.
Clearly, the Governor and the Texas State Legislature
understand the scope and magnitude of the threat and
vulnerability of Texas and the rest of the Nation.
What happens on the Texas-Mexico border doesn't just affect
Texas or even just the border region. It affects the entire
Nation, whether it is transnational crime or if it is a
national security threat.
Clearly, special interest aliens are a problem, and we've
recognized that. This is not a new phenomenon. As the FBI
Special Agent in Charge in 2002, we learned that Border Patrol
was detaining, detecting, detaining, apprehending individuals
from countries with known Al Qaeda presence at that point in
time. That's continued on. It's understandable why Texans are
concerned from a national security standpoint.
To that point, we've talked about changes that we've seen
over the years, and the chief referred to. Crime is remarkably
different. It's more transitory. It's transnational. It's
organized. It's more discreet.
Certainly, it can compromise and undermine public safety
and homeland security and national security.
From a Texas standpoint, it's been very clear in terms from
the Governor and our State Legislature that two things in terms
of guiding principles--a sense of urgency and unity of effort.
Fortunately, with the chief over here, I know when he was
sector chief of Rio Grande Valley for the Border Patrol, he was
a team player. And we were able to do unity of effort and work
closely with him.
I can tell you right now that if properly resourced, they
have the leadership and type of people that can get the job
done to secure the Texas-Mexico border. That's important.
Until that time, our strategic intent by our Legislature,
our Governor, the Texas Department of Public Safety, working
with our local and other State partners that includes Texas
Military Forces, our game wardens, will provide direct support
to Border Patrol in the detection, deterrence, and interdiction
of smuggling events that occur between the ports of entry, and
do so very aggressively.
Every day, we deploy Texas State troopers, Texas Rangers
and special agents in the Department of Public Safety from
around the State down to the Rio Grande Valley where right now
is the epicenter of drug and human smuggling into the United
States, and we'll continue to do so. This will be our direction
until the border is secure.
There are a number of things that certainly can be done, if
properly resourced. There's no doubt that Border Patrol can get
the job done. We look forward to that day when they do have the
resources to be able to do that.
That concludes my comments at this point.
[Prepared statement of Mr. McCraw follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Mr. Judd, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRANDON JUDD
Mr. Judd. Chairman DeSantis, Chairman Meadows, Ranking
Member Lynch, I appreciate the opportunity to testify on behalf
of the 16,500 Border Patrol agents which I represent.
I am going to stick to my comments on the national security
threat of the border and leave out the rhetoric and what might
have led to it. But what I will tell you is that the Obama
administration and CBP Commissioner Kerlikowske have repeatedly
told the American public that the border is more secure today
than it has ever been. As a Border Patrol agent, I will tell
you the exact opposite.
Commissioner Kerlikowske and the administration have
pointed to a decrease in arrests over the past several years,
but they failed to give the American public key indicators such
as the number of arrests of persons from countries with known
terrorist ties or from countries that compete economically with
our interests.
In all of fiscal year 2015, the United States Border Patrol
arrested five persons from Afghanistan, 57 from Pakistan, and
1,327 from the People's Republic of China. Already in the first
5 months of this fiscal year, the United States Border Patrol
has arrested 18 from Afghanistan--the first quarter, five of
all last year, the first quarter--18 from Afghanistan, 79 from
Pakistan--all of 2015, again, was 18--and 619 from the People's
Republic of China. Those numbers should alarm everyone.
We are seeing a similar trend from other key countries like
Albania, Bangladesh, and Brazil.
If the single factor for the litmus test is lower numbers,
then compared to fiscal year 2015, one must conclude we are
failing.
As someone who has been involved in border protection for
over 18 years, I can unequivocally tell you the border is not
secure, and the situation is getting worse instead of better.
Arrests are not the only factor in determining whether the
border is secure. We have to look at the totality of the
situation, such as violence, the number of persons evading
arrest, and whether organized crime continues to turn a profit.
In the context of the times, we must also look at whether
persons from country who would do us harm are able to exploit
our weaknesses through our policies or the lack of manpower on
the border.
It is well-documented that criminal cartels control the
border in the same way inmates control most prison facilities.
The cartels are extremely well-organized, pathologically
violent, and have an entire infrastructure on both sides of the
border.
In Mexico, it is estimated that over 150,000 people have
been killed in cartel-related violence. They have killed police
officers, judges, elected officials, and ordinary civilians who
have crossed their path.
This is the opponent Border Patrol agents face daily. It is
an opponent that controls all aspects of border crimes,
including narcotics and illegal immigrant smuggling.
One key way to determine whether the cartels are winning is
to analyze key data of entries to arrest. Two weeks ago, I was
visiting a station in the Del Rio Border Patrol sector. During
that week that I was there--I was there 1 day, but during that
week in which I was there, a total of 157 known entries came
into the United States through that station's area of
responsibility.
Of those 157: 74 were arrested; 54 were known to have
evaded arrest and furthered their entry into the United States;
17 were able to evade arrest and make it back to Mexico; and 12
were still outstanding and unaccounted for.
That is a 47 percent arrest rate. That is not very good.
But it's not the Border Patrol agents' fault. We're just
simply overmanned. We don't have the resources that are
necessary.
In fact, yesterday I received an email from an agent in
Arizona, and that email said that there was a 10-mile stretch
for 2 days, and this is documented on the reports from the
Border Patrol management, a 10-mile stretch of border that was
unmanned for 2 whole days.
Criminal cartels were able to go to the fence, cut a hole
in the fence, drive two vehicles through that hole and escape.
They were able then to put the fence back up and try to hide
the cuts that they had made.
Border Patrol agents were able to go down and see the
vehicle tracks. There was actually a camera that did catch the
two vehicles on the border. They didn't see the vehicle drive
through the border, but the tracks clearly indicate that it
was, and there was no were no other vehicles coming from east,
so it had to be those two vehicles that crossed the border.
The scariest part of those vehicles entering into the
United States is we don't know what was in this vehicles. We
have no idea.
Of those persons that were able to evade arrest in this Del
Rio station, those 54 and the 12 outstanding, we don't know
where they were from.
It's unfortunate that we're currently in this situation in
which it appears that we invite what we're currently
experiencing. And because we are overmanned--and it's not that
they didn't want to man the border in these two areas in
Arizona that this vehicle drove through, they just didn't have
the manpower to do it. That is the unfortunate situation today.
I look forward to answering any and all of your questions.
Thank you very much.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Judd follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Professor Jan Ting, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAN C. TING
Mr. Ting. I share the comments of my copanelists. Thanks
to the two subcommittee chairmen and all the members for
inviting us here today.
I also share the concern over the statistical information
that the members, particularly Mr. Meadows, have referred to.
And I share the concern that Mr. Judd has just expressed about
the situation at our border.
I want to talk about two issues, in particular, expedited
removal and credible fear, that I think bear on the concern
that many of us here share.
Prior to 1996, we had no expedited removal, and arriving
aliens in the United States could basically stay for a long
time by making an asylum claim. There was an enormous backlog,
and they were put in line and released on their own
recognizance.
There was also a 60 Minutes piece which showed that people
were landing at Kennedy Airport every single day without
documentation and being released into the general population.
That I think pushed Congress in 1996 to enact expedited
removal, which on its face provides a way to turn arriving
aliens around who lack any documentation.
The problem is, as I discuss in my written comments, in one
of the classic bipartisan compromises for which Congress is
alternately praised and condemned, Congress enacted expedited
removal in a way that provides that if the--first of all, they
did two things.
First of all, they determined that the first interview
would be a credible fear interview. In the end, even though
they tried to take the immigration judges out, as I discuss in
my written comments, the immigration judges get back into the
process anyway. So while it looks good on its face, expedited
removal in practice hasn't worked out very well, even though it
has been expanded not just to arriving aliens but within 100
miles of the border.
So expedited removal is potentially a useful tool, but it's
hobbled by this credible fear determination and by the ultimate
right to delay removal by an appeal to an immigration judge. So
there are two problems.
I talked in my written comments about credible fear, and
where did credible fear come from anyway? I have some knowledge
about that, because I know that in 1991 in the midst of the
Haitian migrant crisis, when we had a lot of Haitians heading
for the United States, we were trying to kind of in a chaotic
situation manage that flow and provide asylum interviews for
people. It was very difficult. In fact, we started operating
the detention facilities at Guantanamo in an effort to cope
with that migrant crisis.
And the Immigration and Naturalization Service invented
credible fear kind of on-the-fly as a way of screening out
people who obviously were not entitled to asylum. If people
couldn't even present a story, which, if true, would entitle
them to asylum, we determined that they could be turned around
immediately and returned to Haiti without a full-blown asylum
interview.
On the other hand, for those people who could articulate a
coherent story that seemed credible, they would be allowed to
advance to a full-blown asylum interview, recognizing there was
a backlog for that and it would slow the process down. But for
those people, they would get the full asylum interview.
As it turns out, that credible fear practice was very
short-lived, because the numbers were so enormous that
President Bush, George H.W. Bush, determined that we couldn't
continue processing migrants from Haiti. And he determined that
they would all be returned to Haiti without any processing at
all.
Obviously, that was challenged by many advocates and went
all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the
Supreme Court of the United States in 8-to-1 decision in a case
called Sale v. United States, which I cite in my written
remarks, the Supreme Court of the United States held that that
was fine, that the United States had no obligation under its
own laws or under international law to conduct asylum
interviews on the high seas.
So credible fear was a temporary measure that probably
wasn't even necessary in the end. It only lasted for a few
months.
And I was startled to see credible fear appear in the
statute of the United States as part of our expedited removal
process. When expedited removal came in, credible fear shows up
in the statute. Where does that come from?
So while it was invented as a device to screen out
migrants, as has been commented on, it's being used now as a
device to screen people in, so they don't have to actually
approve their asylum claims. All they have to do is state a
credible fear and they are basically in. They join the queue
for an immigration judge, so they can make their asylum claim
in removal proceedings. And we know that can sometimes take a
long time.
And that the word is out, this is how you do it. You make a
good credible fear claim and you're in. In this age of modern,
instantaneous communications, that word spreads quickly.
So I am very concerned about that. And I have a number of
proposals. I'm over time already, but I do want to say, I think
we need to train more asylum officers. We ought to train all of
our immigration offices, including Border Patrol agents, in
asylum law, and we ought to have them do asylum interviews.
I think we ought to, as I propose in my written comments,
remove credible fear from the statute. It doesn't belong there.
We should go straight to an asylum interview. And we ought to
have enough asylum officers, including trained Border Patrol
agents and other Customs and Border Patrol officers, to do
that.
I have other recommendations, and I refer you to my written
comments. Thank you.
[Prepared statement of Mr. Ting follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you.
Ms. Acer, you are up for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELEANOR ACER
Ms. Acer. Thank you so much, Chairman DeSantis, Chairman
Meadows, Ranking Member Lynch, and members of the
subcommittees. It is an honor to be here today to offer our
views regarding national security at our borders and the
importance of the U.S. commitment to protect refugees.
The horrific terrorist attacks in Brussels yesterday are
yet another reminder of the terrible harms that terrorists are
inflicting on innocent civilians around the world.
Human Rights First is a nonprofit organization with offices
in Texas, New York, and Washington, D.C. We operate one of the
largest pro bono legal representation programs for asylum-
seekers in the country, working in partnership with lawyers
from some of the Nation's leading law firms.
The United States can and must protect its national
security, and can and must do so while also complying with its
human rights and refugee protection commitments, as made clear
in the letter from leading national security experts of both
parties referenced earlier by Ranking Member Lynch.
Both at the formal points of entry as well as at our land
borders, CBP has extensive tools and databases to identify
individuals who present a risk to national security, including
databases that contain information from various U.S. agencies
and foreign sources. For cases that enter the process through
credible fear as well, DHS asylum officers also conduct a range
of vetting and checks. Before an individual can be granted
asylum, they have to be either interviewed by an asylum officer
or through an immigration court hearing.
Only a very small portion of the world's refugees seek
protection here in the United States. The increase in Central
American claims from the Northern Triangle, including children
and families, have not only affected the United States. The
U.N. refugee agency has reported that the countries of Mexico,
Belize, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and Panama have seen the number
of asylum applications from the Northern Triangle countries
grow to nearly 13 times what it was in 2008.
While a very small portion of asylum-seekers also come from
outside the hemisphere, many of those small numbers come from
top refugee-hosting states, as well as from China.
U.S. leadership in protecting refugees is not only a
reflection of American ideals, it also advances U.S. national
security and foreign policy interests.
Earlier this year, I too visited Jordan, Lebanon, and
Turkey to assess the Syrian refugee crisis. The critical
infrastructures of frontline refugee-hosting states are under
severe pressure. And as Ryan Crocker, former U.S. Ambassador to
Syria, Iraq, and Lebanon, has explained, U.S. efforts to share
in hosting some Syrian refugees affirmatively advance U.S.
national security interests by helping to protect the stability
of a region that is home to some key U.S. allies.
In our policies and practices, as well as in public
rhetoric, it's critical to distinguish between the victims of
terror and repression on the one hand, and the perpetrators of
horrific acts on the other.
As a number of leading U.S. national security experts have
described, efforts to bar Syrian refugees, for example, are
counterproductive from a national security perspective, as they
actually help the ISIL narrative. Former DHS Secretary Michael
Chertoff has cautioned that you don't want to play into the
narrative of the bad guy. That's giving propaganda to the
enemy.
A strong asylum and immigration system that adjudicates the
immigration removal cases before it in a timely and fair manner
is essential both for ensuring the integrity of the U.S.
immigration process as well as for protecting refugees from
return to places of persecution.
Yet, over 480,000 immigration court removal cases have now
been pending for an average of 667 days in the U.S. immigration
courts, with projected average wait times around 3 years. We
urge Congress to support the addition of immigration judges and
additional support staff to address this backlog.
Finally, the current asylum system is actually failing to
provide protection in a manner consistent with this country's
commitments. Over the years, so many barriers and hurdles and
technical complexities have been added to the asylum system
that refugees who seek the protection of the United States
often find themselves denied asylum, delayed in receiving
protection, or, in many cases that we see from our work day in
and day out, lingering for months in jails and jail-like
immigration detention facilities.
In our experience, the expedited removal system and the
credible fear process, which I think has a 78 percent pass
right now, is actually preventing many legitimate refugees from
even applying for asylum. I am happy to answer questions about
this.
Many cannot navigate this increasingly complicated system
without legal counsel, and many go unrepresented because they
cannot afford that.
In my testimony, I have outlined a number of additional
recommendations, and I'm happy to talk about those. Thank you
so much for the opportunity.
[Prepared statement of Ms. Acer follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. DeSantis. Thank you. The chair now recognizes himself
for 5 minutes.
Mr. McCraw, your agency issued a report saying that several
Somali immigrants crossing the border who are known members of
al-Shabaab have been apprehended, as well as other Somali-based
terrorist groups. Can you describe the aliens of special
interest that you have seen coming across the border, the
threat posed, and how Texas is dealing with that population?
Mr. McCraw. As previously testified by others here,
clearly, there are special interest aliens anywhere from
Afghanistan to Yemen that have been coming across the Texas-
Mexico border that have been detected and apprehended by Border
Patrol. That is a fact.
As it relates to al-Shabaab, the connection to Somalians,
it's an FBI case. It was prosecuted and is open-source
information regarding the support--a Somalian smuggling
operation out of San Antonio that would bring Somalians across
and help them resettle across the United States. And there had
been a nexus determined in the investigation to terrorism.
We're mindful of that. We're also mindful of other aspects,
in terms of it.
Until we get a handle on our borders, until we're secure
between the ports of entry, and no one is able to cross between
the ports undetected, there's no way to tell in terms of the
scope and magnitude of the problem that we--exists right now,
frankly.
And there's no excuse not to secure the border. It can be
done. If the proper resources are applied and Border Patrol
given those resources, it absolutely can be done.
Until that time, Texas has made it very clear the Governor
and State Legislature want to spend whatever it takes to
support Border Patrol to get it done, because it's too
important to Texas.
Mr. DeSantis. Mr. Judd, CBP will often say that since
apprehensions are down, the border is more secure. How does
that number account for those who the Border Patrol doesn't
ever see?
Mr. Judd. It doesn't. As I previously stated, those drive-
throughs, because there were no agents assigned in that area in
which the drive-through took place, if it wasn't for a camera
that actually saw the vehicles, we wouldn't have even known
that those vehicles had crossed.
So if we don't have the resources to assign to a specific
area, then we don't know what is crossing that area.
And I would like to correct myself. I looked back at my
notes. It wasn't 2 days that that area was open. It was open
for a long stretch of period of time, but I don't know exactly
how long. I know that it was at least one shift and more than
that. So I just wanted to correct that.
Mr. DeSantis. We have received reports from Border Patrol
agents that sectors and offices reporting lower apprehension
numbers are often rewarded, and that apprehensions when they
fall between jurisdictions of different offices within a
sector, those apprehensions are simply not counted.
Have you heard similar reports suggesting that CBP might be
fudging the apprehension data?
Mr. Judd. Not only have I heard similar reports, I've
actually seen it. When I was assigned to the intel office at
one of the Border Patrol stations which I worked, there was a
note that came across the desk from a watch commander, a high-
ranking manager, that said you must remove these numbers from
the got-away report, because there's no entry point, and
therefore, if there's no entry point, then we can't say where
it entered, and therefore, we can't reconcile the numbers.
The question that was posed to this watch commander was,
well, we know that they got away. Where are we going to report
that they got away? He said, well, if there's no entry point,
then there were no got-aways. And we said but we have the
evidence that they got away. He said no, there are no got-
aways, remove it. And we were forced to remove it.
Mr. DeSantis. And I hear some of the witnesses talking
about resources, and I agree resources are an issue.
But, Mr. Judd, isn't our functional policy basically catch-
and-release at this point? In other words, you can have beefed
up Border Patrol, but if people know that if they just get
across the border, they are most likely going to be given a
citation and be released and then they come back in a year or
whatever, to me, that is still going to be a major incentive
for people to come in illegally. Am I wrong?
Mr. Judd. Well, the resources are important and, in part,
you're correct. In part, you're wrong.
In, let's say, for instance, the Del Rio sector, the Del
Rio sector does not necessarily release a whole lot of illegal
aliens. Because they have Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
they have the bed space to hold onto these people.
So the main determining factor is, do we have the space to
hold onto these individuals? If we do have the space to hold
onto them, then Immigration and Customs Enforcement, they do
hold onto them. But if we don't have the space for them, then
we release them. That's where the resources come into play.
Mr. DeSantis. Professor Ting, CBP has confirmed that
aliens from special interest countries are being apprehended by
Border Patrol. USCIS has confirmed that aliens claiming
credible fear have been subject to terrorism bars in the INA.
Do you think that the administration's policies regarding
aliens who arrive at the border could encourage more nefarious
actors to attempt to enter the United States illegally along
the Southwest border?
Mr. Ting. I think it's reasonable to assume that the
nefarious actors you're referring to are constantly looking for
ways to gain entry to the United States.
As I said earlier, in the age of instantaneous
communications, the flaws in our border security system are
known instantaneously and are carried in the media. I think
it's a legitimate concern. And I applaud the committee here for
taking an interest in this subject.
Mr. DeSantis. So once that word gets out, as you say,
basically, if you are somebody who wants to do the United
States harm, you can come to the border, claim credible fear,
you will likely be released, receive a work permit, and then
you will have a court date, what, in a couple years?
Mr. Ting. Yes. In the olden days, what used to happen, I
believe, is that if people came to the border and wanted to
make an asylum claim, we told them, fine, we'll schedule you
for an appointment, come back to the border, but we're not
going to admit you.
Indeed, there is still a code section, 235(b)(2)(C) in the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorizes the return of
arriving aliens to contiguous territory from which they
arrived. So there is statutory authority for turning people
around at the border, if we wanted to exercise it as we used to
once upon a time.
Mr. DeSantis. So do you think if we moved away from some
of these loopholes, moved away from a more catch-and-release
posture, obviously, people that would come could be
apprehended, but then wouldn't that be a deterrent for other
people to realize that is probably not the best use of my time
and money to try to go across the southern border, if they
think there is a probability that the law is actually going to
be enforced?
Mr. Ting. Yes, absolutely. I think it would help to have
an administration that is really serious about defending the
border and enforcing the laws enacted by Congress. But I also
think there are things Congress can do to tighten up the laws:
taking credible fear out; requiring asylum officer training for
more immigration officers, so asylum officers are available in
larger numbers so we can do processing on the border; and, as I
mentioned, turning around people at the border and saying, if
you want to make a claim, come back when we have time to
interview you and we'll interview you. There's statutory
authority for that already.
Mr. DeSantis. Great. My time is expired.
I now recognize the ranking member, Mr. Lynch, for 5
minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you very much.
I really appreciate your opening statements and testimony.
I want to drill down. I do not want to spend a lot of time on
this, but let's talk about the credible fear standard.
As I read the 1951 Geneva Convention for refugees, it says
``well-founded fear.'' That is the standard, well-founded fear.
When I see this standard, you are talking about credible fear.
When you go to Webster's or New Collegiate Dictionary, ``well-
founded'' is ``credible,'' and ``credible'' is ``well-
founded.''
I don't understand what the dickering is all about. Isn't
it really the same standard as the Geneva Convention?
Mr. Ting. No, it is absolutely not the same standard. The
Geneva Convention established what has become the international
standard for asylum.
Mr. Lynch. Just the fear. We are talking about the fear.
Mr. Ting. A well-founded fear of persecution on account of
one of five specific reasons--race, religion, nationality,
social group, or political opinion.
So first of all, what is persecution, right? And what is
race, religion, nationality, social group, and political
opinion? There is a whole body of law that's developed around
that standard in the United States and internationally.
Mr. Lynch. We are talking about the fear that that person
has.
Mr. Ting. Credible fear is something that was, as I
suggest, made up on-the-fly for administrative convenience.
Mr. Lynch. It seems very close to the Geneva Convention
standard, though. When you look it up, Webster's Dictionary,
credible versus well-founded, it is not totally made up if it
means exactly the same thing. I know in application, it is
different. I am not questioning that.
Mr. Ting. All I can say is that everyone on the ground who
was dealing with that issue at the time, credible fear was a
clearly different and lower standard.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. I hear you. You said that already.
Ms. Acer, could you?
Ms. Acer. Thank you. I just want to also caution that the
United States has to--not only does it have obligations under
the international Refugee Convention, but we also have to think
about the example we set to other states.
If we were to start turning away people at our border who
apply for asylum, what message does that send to Jordan, to
Lebanon?
Mr. Lynch. Yes, but can we talk about my question, though?
Ms. Acer. Yes. I'm so sorry.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you.
Ms. Acer. In terms of the credible fear process, to answer
your question, it was set up, the 1996 law, instead of allowing
people to actually go into immigration court removal
proceedings, allowed people to be deported on the order of a
CBP officer, essentially.
In order to make sure we were complying with our
obligations, a screening process was set in, so that the U.S.,
the idea was, would not inadvertently deport someone who should
have a shot at applying for asylum.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Ms. Acer. We have found in our day-in-and-day-out
practice, as I said, that actually many people who are
legitimate refugees are not passing that process.
Mr. Lynch. Okay.
Ms. Acer. And the immigration judge review that was
mentioned happens in just a couple days, very quickly, and in
rare cases.
Mr. Lynch. Okay. I have 2 minutes left, and I want to get
to this other issues.
There are pull factors and push factors. We did a couple
codels. We went down to San Salvador. We went down to
Tegucigalpa. And we went down to Guatemala City.
And so we were at the airport when the people--largely,
mostly kids, but a few parents--when the kids arrived back in
Tegucigalpa, I think it was.
So we had stopped them at the border and sent them back,
and the plane arrived around 11 o'clock. By 1 o'clock in the
afternoon, every kid had been picked up. Every child had been
picked up and taken home by their families.
The deal there, in talking to the immigrants, these
families that are trying to get into the United States
illegally, they said the range was $7,000 to $8,000 per person,
and they get three tries. They get three tries to get into the
United States.
They call them ``coyotes.'' I don't like using that term,
because it has a romantic appeal to it. These are human
traffickers, okay? And they are putting these kids at grave
risk in this whole exercise here.
So what I am getting at is, there is a push factor.
Actually, there is a pull factor by having low standards in
this country for allowing immigrants to come in. But there is
also a push factor, because there is an industry down there in
Central America that it is much more profitable than smuggling
drugs. And most of these countries don't have human trafficking
laws in place down there, so they can do this, and there are no
real dire consequences as there would be if they were
trafficking in drugs or guns.
So I am asking my Border Patrol folks, is this the nature
of the problem? What is a greater factor, the pull factor of
the United States being lax or the push factor of the industry
down there that is actually pushing people up to our border?
Mr. Vitiello?
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you, Congressman.
We found in our reporting that there's a multitude of
factors that drive folks away from their home country, and
then, like you say, get pulled into the U.S. So smugglers have
taken advantage of the situation wherein people believe that if
they came to the United States, they would be able to stay. We
have reports that smugglers are actually using that concept to
draw more people that might otherwise not consider the trip.
Mr. Lynch. Right. Okay.
Mr. McCraw?
Mr. McCraw. Clearly, the Mexican cartels have adopted
people as a commodity, and human trafficking clearly is a core
business now of the Mexican cartels.
The pull part is they want to encourage as many to come
across, because unlike drugs, they don't need precursor
chemicals. They don't have to grow it. They make an immediate
profit, even when they get to the river. They don't even have
to get across the river to get a profit.
Then they further compound it by when they move them across
the river, often they will load them down in stash houses and
continue to extort them for additional money, so it's an
ongoing process.
Clearly, the cartels get a vote in terms of that push and
that pull factors going into the United States.
Mr. Lynch. Okay, Mr. Judd, do you have anything to add?
Mr. Judd. Absolutely. It comes down to risk-reward.
There is very little risk when you are smuggling migrants.
The laws of the United States, the accountability that we hold
these human traffickers when we arrest them, it's a very low
standard.
However, if we arrest a drug smuggler that's smuggling
cocaine, methamphetamine, or something like that, then the
consequences are much greater.
Mr. Lynch. I spend a lot of time in the Middle East, and
so do a lot of members on this committee.
When Angela Merkel back last August said Germany welcomes
the Syrian refugees, we will take them, she ended up with 1.3
million. She never expected it. Now they are sort of backing
away from that. That was a pull factor. That was a pull factor.
When you talk to the Syrians on the border, they all want
to go to Germany, because they were beckoned to do so.
I am just wondering if we have a similar situation here
because we didn't see the surge when there was civil war in El
Salvador, when there was civil war in Nicaragua. We did not see
the huge--and those people could've legitimately said, I have a
civil war back home, and I need to come to the United States.
We didn't see the requests at the border that we are seeing
now.
I don't know. There is something else going on here. Maybe
we are part of it up here creating this problem.
I yield back. You have been very courteous. I appreciate
it, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina,
Mr. Meadows, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Meadows. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me follow up a little bit on what Mr. Lynch just talked
about, because as we start to look at this particular issue,
there is a big difference between refugees and asylum-seekers.
Somehow we put those two together, assuming that they are
one and the same. Indeed, they are not one and the same. We
have different processes for those.
I serve on the Global Health and Human Rights Foreign
Affairs Subcommittee. There is nothing that is more close to my
heart, in terms of those who are truly in need.
But what Mr. Lynch was talking about really comes to mind,
what are the places that are most troubled from a standpoint of
people needing asylum or refugee status? What countries come to
mind as being the most horrific right now?
Ms. Acer, what country would you put in the top two?
Ms. Acer. I guess you could look at it in terms of numbers
and then, of course, you have Syria.
Mr. Meadows. So Syria would be number one.
Ms. Acer. I am not going to rank them right now, but I
would say certainly ----
Mr. Meadows. Is it in the top five?
Ms. Acer. Yes, I would say so.
Mr. Meadows. All right. The reason I come there is because
what Mr. Lynch was talking about is, if indeed the worst place
in the world is Syria, what we would see is coming across our
southern border this mass infiltration from Syria. But really,
when we start to look at the numbers, it is not bearing that
out as much.
So, Mr. Ting, I need to understand the process, because Ms.
Acer had talked about the fact that these asylum-seekers come
and they sit in jail.
Now we have been led to believe that, since 2009, there was
a different administration rule that would not actually put
them in jail. Mr. Judd would apprehend them. They would go
through and seek credible fear. And then they would be released
and not sit in jail waiting for that.
Is that correct, Mr. Ting?
Mr. Ting. Well, there are two distinct programs. You
referred to refugees. We operate an overseas refugee program.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Ting. I think the most generous overseas refugee
program in the world, taking well-over 55,000 a year ----
Mr. Meadows. The State Department is involved with that. A
number of other ----
Mr. Ting. But that is a pick-and-choose program.
Mr. Meadows. Right.
Mr. Ting. We get to pick which refugees are of special
interest to the United States and bring them to the United
States.
The asylum program allows people who are already here to
apply for asylum, and there is no numerical limit on asylum.
So if you can claim that you're a refugee and you're
already here, under our law and international law, we cannot
return you to your home country. You qualify for discretionary
asylum status in the United States, which can put you on a path
to a green card and eventually becoming a U.S. citizen along
with everybody else. No numerical limit.
So it's very tempting, I think, given the fact that you may
be a refugee in a displaced persons camp in Jordan or Turkey,
and if the U.S. doesn't pick you, you are kind of stuck there.
But if you can get yourself into the United States or at the
border and make the claim, then you're going to get processed
sooner or later.
I think that is a great temptation. As Mr. Lynch says, that
is a pull factor, to the extent that people have a realistic
expectation. And I think the administration, frankly, is trying
to balance expectations and is deliberately, I think, trying to
deter people by imposing some consequences on their coming to
the United States and making claims.
Mr. Meadows. So I can tell by the nonverbal gestures to
your right from my standpoint, that she does not agree, so go
ahead. I will give you very short--I have very limited time.
Ms. Acer. Thank you.
We are certainly protected from a large Syrian influx at
our border by our geographical location, but the Northern
Triangle countries are incredibly dangerous. As I mentioned
before, asylum requests are up significantly in the region as
well.
I would just say, in our day in and day out, we represent
asylum-seekers who pass through the credible fear process and
are held in very jail-like facilities, which the U.S.
Commission on International Religious Freedom has said are ----
Mr. Meadows. So, Mr. Judd, you put them in jail? If they
have credible fear claims, your Border Patrol puts them in
jail?
Mr. Judd. It strictly depends upon where it's at. If it's
in RGV, most likely not. We just don't have the bed space. If
it is in the Tucson sector, most likely not. We do not have the
bed space. If it is in the Del Rio sector, I will tell you I
drove by where we put them and it is anything but a jail.
There's no fences. There's nothing around it. In fact, it's
been described to me more like a country club.
Mr. Meadows. Okay. So we either let them go, or we put
them in what you would classify as a country club setting, is
what you're saying?
Mr. Judd. From what I saw, yes.
Mr. Meadows. So part of the testimony here is that we deny
a whole lot. Let me ask you this. It appears, in 2013, that we
approved 92 percent of the people coming across our border, in
terms of fiscal year 2013. Ninety-two percent of the people who
came across and said there is a credible fear got approved. I
guess in the first quarter of this year, it is actually 86
percent.
So if we are looking at approving that many, everybody who
comes across and says--it is almost everybody who comes across
who says I have a credible fear, I want asylum.
Is that the reason those numbers continue to go higher, Mr.
Judd?
Mr. Judd. What I can tell you is what we see on the
border. Unfortunately, I don't go through the entire process.
All I do is I arrest people, and then I ----
Mr. Meadows. So do they get a long interview? I guess when
they ----
Mr. Judd. No. No.
Mr. Meadows. So what is the interview like?
Mr. Judd. By Border Patrol agents, when we arrest them, if
they're from countries other than Mexico, it's very quick. All
they have to do is claim that they have a credible fear.
Mr. Meadows. So if I am speaking Farsi, I can come across
and say I have a credible fear, and I do not get a real
interview?
Mr. Judd. No, you don't.
Mr. Meadows. So the very people that may be terrorists,
and I don't want to categorize one particular group as speaking
a particular language, but those are higher threat areas to us
based on their past history, they get a shorter interview?
Mr. Judd. Well, for special interest countries, we
actually turn them--we notify the FBI immediately, if they are
from a special interest country. We won't even interview those
individuals.
For instance, in Sonoita, when we arrested the Afghanis and
Pakistanis, the most recent that I am aware of, they were
immediately turned over to the FBI. We didn't even interview
them.
But from countries that are not considered special
interest, from, say, China, Bangladesh would be the same, it's
a very short interview. As long as they tell us that they have
a credible fear, the interview basically ends at that point for
the Border Patrol.
Mr. Meadows. All right. Thank you.
I yield back. I appreciate the patience of the chair.
Mr. DeSantis. I thank the gentleman.
The chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois for
5 minutes.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, witnesses.
In today's complex threat environment, effective
counterterrorism and law enforcement efforts rely on
sophisticated intelligence-gathering and sharing capabilities.
Especially because of their exponential effects, we should
focus our efforts to strengthen the border on these
intelligence capabilities.
Mr. Vitiello, your written testimony states, and I quote,
``A whole-of-government approach that leverages interagency and
international partnerships as a force multiplier has been and
will continue to be the most effective way to keep our borders
secure.''
Which other agencies does Customs and Border Patrol share
intelligence or information with to secure the border?
Mr. Vitiello. So all of the entities, State, local,
tribal, that are at the immediate border, and then we have
important relationships in the contiguous countries, Canada and
Mexico, with their federal police, with their immigration
authorities, their customs group. And also CBP has the benefit
of having a worldwide footprint. So in all the places where
we're active, either providing services for people who are
coming to the country or a liaison relationship in places like
Mexico and Canada to exchange important law enforcement
information.
So anybody that has the common interest of securing the
border, gathering intelligence to aid in counterterrorism
efforts, et cetera, those are all the people that we interact
with.
Ms. Kelly. Can you further explain how these partnerships
act as a force multiplier?
Mr. Vitiello. As a simple example with Mexico's
immigration authorities, when the surge of unaccompanied minors
started in 2014, several requests through the liaison and then
official government requests for Mexico to do more at their
southern border and the INM group, their immigration authority
group, stepped up and effectively shut down some of the more
common routes of people coming to the United States and was
seeking out to prosecute smugglers who were responsible for
some of that activity.
That led to an overall reduction in people who could use
those routes. We are still challenged by that, but we were able
to support their work with liaisons and mentors in Mexico to
understand the challenges that they have and give them, where
we could, tips and advice and mentorship so that they could do
their work better.
Ms. Kelly. That is a good example of how interagency and
international partnerships can strengthen the border. Any other
examples?
Mr. Vitiello. So we have also a very important
relationship in Canada as well. We share information about
threats that we perceive coming from the U.S. into Canada and
vice versa, lots of information exchange. Then it is the
responsibility of our leadership in the field to maintain good
relationships with all law enforcement communities, so that we
can identify and understand which of the threats are most
important by community and then work together to abate them.
Ms. Kelly. It seems as though, when you hear about threats
to the border, it is always the southern border, not as much
the northern border. What are the percentages? Or is that how
you would describe it?
Mr. Vitiello. So overwhelmingly, our resources are
dedicated to the southern border. That is where the activity is
represented by the large numbers, volumes of people, volumes of
things, because of the nature of the real estate and the
differences in both economies, et cetera.
But we also have important work that we do with Canada, and
we do similar things as it relates to identifying where we need
to be situationally aware on the border, technology to help us
patrol and monitor. And then obviously the relationships are
key in understanding the threats that are faced.
Ms. Kelly. Okay. Your testimony continues, ``DHS works
with our Federal, State, local, tribal, and international
partners, particularly Canada and Mexico, to address
transnational threats.''
What types of helpful information does Canada and Mexico
provide that the U.S. would not otherwise have access to?
Mr. Vitiello. So at CBP, and obviously this is true with
other Federal law enforcement, is we help identify the criminal
networks that are responsible for human trafficking, gun
smuggling, illicit financing.
So what we do is we try to understand amongst ourselves,
with them and ourselves, what the threats are and how to combat
them, and then help identify by network which are the most
problematic criminal enterprises.
Ms. Kelly. Do you feel these partnerships have improved
over time, and you are getting more and more information, and
there is more of a comfort level with these other agencies?
Mr. Vitiello. So it ebbs and flows, as it relates to the
international engagement. I think in Canada, it has been stable
and very well-used for quite some time.
In Mexico, it sort of ebbs and flows with the changes of
administration, et cetera. But they have been a strong partner
with us, especially at the Federal police level and their
immigration authorities.
Ms. Kelly. Thank you so much.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. DeSantis. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
Florida, Mr. Mica, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this joint
hearing. I think there couldn't be a better time, with
incidents that we have seen most recently and around the world
relating to terrorism and our border vulnerability.
I guess you would probably conclude that our borders are
porous, a sieve, and tens of thousands of illegals are coming
across the border.
Would that be appropriate, Mr. Judd? Do you think that is
correct?
Mr. Judd. That is correct. Border Patrol agents, these are
very motivated individuals. They want to do the best that they
can. They do the best that they possibly can.
Mr. Mica. You described the vehicle. They cut the wires
and came through. You don't know whether there were drugs,
weapons, explosives. It could have carried great quantities of
that across the border.
Mr. Judd. It could've been anything.
Mr. Mica. Let me ask the DHS representative, I just heard
that El Chapo, the noted drug kingpin and czar, crossed the
border. He bragged about it, I guess after his capture, like he
was coming on some regular vacation journey to the United
States. Are you aware of that?
Mr. Vitiello. No, I had not heard that.
Mr. Mica. Not only were we informed that he was crossing
routinely, now we have evidence that some of the weapons, at
least one of the weapons that was found when he was captured
was from the Fast and Furious collection, which was provided by
the U.S. Government. You are not aware of that either?
Mr. Vitiello. I did see that in media reports.
Mr. Mica. Okay.
Most disturbing. Mr. Judd, you gave some excellent
testimony. You described one of the issues, and you said the
Border Patrol, due to DHS prosecutorial discretion guidelines,
released more than 3,800 illegal aliens who were in our custody
and were subject to deportation proceedings. And you said they
were released simply because they claimed to have been in the
United States continuously since January 2014.
This amnesty through policy of the administration, this is
the President's policy of amnesty? Is that what rules the
proceedings?
Mr. Judd. If you ask Border Patrol agents, absolutely.
Mr. Mica. So we have allowed tens of thousands--I saw an
estimate of about 50,000 criminal illegals in the United
States, a guesstimate.
They are subject to deportation, aren't they?
Mr. Judd. Yes. Anybody that's here illegally is subject to
deportation.
Mr. Mica. But, again, we have allowed millions with a sort
of waiver and tied your hands, which you put in your written
testimony.
Not only the borders but the airports are now our borders
where people are flying in, whether it is from Europe, or
Central or South America, around the world.
And there is a Credential Screening Gateway System, which
is outlined in an IG report, June 4, 2015. It says worker
credentials, and these are workers at the airport that, in
fact, we don't have thousands of passport numbers. These are
people with, for example, no alien registration number for
immigrants working in our airports, 14,000; no passport number
for immigrants, 75,000; first names with two characters or
less, 1,500; what is this, 87 some thousand-some working--
87,000 active and we don't have those records.
Are you aware of that, Mr. Vitiello? This is a DHS
inspector general report.
Mr. Vitiello. It's not particularly my area, but I am
aware of the reporting on that subject.
Mr. Mica. So the borders are a sieve. We have people
working at our airports who are aliens who we don't even know
anything about. We don't have confirmed their alien
registration numbers or their passport numbers. Is that
correct?
Mr. Chairman, I would like this page to be made part of the
record.
Mr. DeSantis. Without objection.
Mr. Mica. Finally, if I may, in my local community, my
police chiefs, who I have met with the last few weeks--we have
a big drug epidemic in Florida and around the Nation--but we
were talking about that. And we talked about illegal aliens.
They say they arrest them. They detain them. They call the
Border Patrol. And they advise them that they can't help. And
they are often just escorted to the county line.
Are you aware that that is going on in our local
communities, our local jurisdictions and borders?
Mr. Vitiello. I was not, Congressman. What area is this?
Mr. Mica. Central Florida.
Mr. Vitiello. We're not particularly well-staffed in
Florida at all. Central Florida is not ----
Mr. Mica. But they are dumping them back into the
community, and you all are refusing to do anything.
Maybe some of it is what Mr. Judd described. We have let
them through presidential edict stay here and not be
accountable.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Virginia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair, and I would ask unanimous
consent that my statement be entered into the record in full.
Mr. DeSantis. Without objection.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chair.
Mr. Vitiello, in listening to this last line of
questioning, gosh, I seemed to think some progress has been
made, but maybe I am wrong.
How many Border Patrol agents are there now on the southern
border?
Mr. Vitiello. On the southern border, approximately 17,500
or so.
Mr. Connolly. And how many would there have been 8 years
ago?
Mr. Vitiello. Eight years ago, it would have been at least
half that.
Mr. Connolly. Right. So we have doubled them.
And the immigration reform bill that had been worked out on
a bipartisan basis in the Senate would have doubled that again.
Is that correct?
Mr. Vitiello. I believe so.
Mr. Connolly. Yes. So we doubled the Border Patrol agents.
Deportations, they have fallen to record lows in that 8-
year time period, Mr. Vitiello?
Mr. Vitiello. I think that our activity overall over the
last several years has seen a reduction with the buildup of
resources that we've had.
Mr. Connolly. No, but is it not true that in this last 8-
year period, we actually had record deportations?
Mr. Vitiello. I've seen various reports of the numbers. I
think there was a time that those numbers were higher, and now
have dropped off commensurate with the reductions.
Mr. Connolly. Because we more effective at deterring.
At the height of deportations in the last 8 years, Ms.
Acer, were they higher than in the previous 8 years?
Ms. Acer. I believe they hit around 400,000, which was an
all-time high.
Mr. Connolly. An all-time high. In this administration?
Ms. Acer. Yes, that is my understanding.
Mr. Connolly. Right. Not hiding by executive order and so
forth. Sounds good.
But actually there is another record to be told.
Going back, Mr. Vitiello, to your point about secure
borders, so you mean to say it is hard to get into the United
States, the borders are less porous, because the measures that
were put in place, including personnel, are in fact more
effective? Is that correct?
Mr. Vitiello. We are certainly more capable than we were,
as far as the number of agents, the levels of technology, the
infrastructure that has now been in place, and the improvements
that we made.
Mr. Connolly. And all of that combined has allowed us to
catch people if they try to cross the border?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, we certainly have gotten much more
capability.
Mr. Connolly. So we are deterring lots of people at the
border?
Mr. Vitiello. It is hard to measure deterrence. I think we
have seen, if you look back over the historic highs in the
number of arrests we were making, we have seen a reduction in
that. The panel has already talked about insufficient measure
of apprehensions alone, but we have seen reductions in activity
that are commensurate with the improvements that we have made
not only in sort of the physical structures, more agents, et
cetera, but in other things that we're doing, post-arrest
interviews, consequence delivery, et cetera.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Mica made the point, he used El Chapo as
an example, but we hear it anecdotally, people who are
deported, including bad actors, gang leaders, especially from
El Salvador and Honduras, who multiple times they are deported
and multiple times reenter the United States. Deportation is
not, for them, some sort of penultimate punishment or
deterrence, for that matter.
Could you comment on that? What are we doing to try to make
sure that repeat entrants, illegal entrants, are in fact
permanently barred and deterred, and we are effective at it?
Mr. Vitiello. So we do track the number of arrests people
have, both for criminal violations as well as their previous
immigration history. Through things like the consequence
delivery system, we target people who we know are going to be
repeat offenders or re-cross multiple times, and then seek with
the assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. attorney
offices locally, to prosecute those folks when we find them.
Mr. Connolly. Do you have a special division or a special
targeting task force or a system with respect to gang
activities? Certainly, in a lot of our communities, we are
worried about people, bad actors, who are vicious gang members,
often from Central America, and we don't want them in our
communities, and we don't want them in this country, and we
want them back home, although that causes problems, too, we
understand.
But are you targeting that particular subgroup in this
context?
Mr. Vitiello. So in the context of consequence delivery
system, anybody that is a repeat offender we seek to use the
maximum effect of Federal prosecutions when they are re-
encountered by our officers in the United States. And in all
the cities and the towns that are represented, we work with our
State, local, Federal partners in the task force environment,
and some of those are specifically dedicated to gang activity.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, if I could just follow up?
Okay, that is good, but I am asking, can we target them and
profile them as a likely repeat offender to reenter, and that
is what we want to deter to begin with?
Mr. Vitiello. So what we do is we aggregate the data to
understand that when that person is in front of us and the
agent is doing the booking procedure, when they run the
fingerprints, they'll have a complete record of their previous
criminal and immigration histories. And those that tip the
scale, if you will, toward gang activity or known criminal
offenses inside of that kind of criminal activity, then we'll
work with the local U.S. attorney's office to get them
prosecuted.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you.
My time is up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia for 5
minutes.
Mr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Judd, let me kind of go a little different direction
here for a moment. You have noted in the past some of the
challenges of securing the border on Federal lands.
Specifically, what sort of obstacles do agents face when
access is limited, say due to endangered species or wilderness
designations?
Mr. Judd. I can tell you that I started my career in El
Centro, California. In El Centro, California, if an illegal
alien crossed the border, I could follow that illegal alien in
my vehicle until I caught him forever. It didn't matter how
long. I could go forever until--I followed him.
But if you go and look at Arizona, if an illegal alien
crosses the border, I have to get out of my vehicle. I have to
call somebody. They have to try to get ahead of me. And there
are very, very few access roads, which then puts us behind the
curve. And it's very difficult to apprehend those individuals
on protected lands.
Mr. Hice. Mr. Vitiello, a similar type of thought with you
regarding Federal lands. You are aware of the permitting delays
on Federal lands, whether it is for road maintenance or
forward-operating bases or mobile surveillance systems, what
have you. What is an acceptable period of time for permitting
to take place for your agency before you have lost your
tactical advantage?
Mr. Vitiello. In the concept of when agents are in what we
call hot pursuit, when they are actively following a trail,
even in a wilderness area, they have the ability to continue on
that traffic. As it relates to infrastructure and other
improvements that are made in certain protected lands, we have
a three-agency memorandum of understanding with the Department
of Agriculture and the Department of Interior to work through
things like permitting, environmental assessments, for
improvements that we want to make to install surveillance
equipment or access roads, et cetera.
Mr. Hice. But at some point, your intel becomes irrelevant
if permitting takes so long where you can't--what kind of time
frame is reasonable?
Mr. Vitiello. As soon as we can do it, as soon as
possible, is the best time frame.
Mr. Hice. Are you receiving cooperation from other
agencies?
Mr. Vitiello. The MOU provides a mechanism for us to start
the conversation and then work through the expectations and
milestones to get things accomplished that we need to have
done.
Mr. Hice. Okay. Of course, we all know that ISIS is
attempting to exploit any and all of our loopholes on our
Nation's national security and, in particular, our borders,
from infiltrating the refugee program, and so forth.
But when it comes to our borders, how high are the security
risks? And how can we mitigate those?
I will begin, Mr. Judd, with you quickly.
Mr. Judd. They are extremely high. The best way that we
can mitigate these risks are resources in the field, giving us
the resources that are necessary, so that we're not leaving
areas of the border just completely unmanned.
Mr. Hice. Okay.
Mr. Ting?
Mr. Ting. I think it is very much related to the volume of
border crossers that have to be processed. I mean, we're all
aware that there was a tremendous border surge in Fiscal Year
2014, and preliminary statistics show that the border surge in
the current fiscal year, 2016, may exceed that number.
I think when you have a historic border surge, that
obviously stresses whatever resources are available at the
border, and it makes it more likely that security risks can
take advantage of that situation and penetrate our border,
simply riding the tide of the high volume of processing that
has to occur.
Looking at Fiscal Year 2016, I think a lot of us think
we're confronting that situation this year.
Mr. Hice. Okay, let me ask you, Mr. McCraw, how high are
the security risks? And how do we mitigate it?
Mr. McCraw. They're substantial. Until you secure it, you
can't mitigate it fully.
I know Congressman Connolly was concerned about MS-13 and
other criminal aliens that come across, and how do you keep
them from coming back? The only way you do it is secure it. The
way you secure it is you provide Border Patrol additional
agents, detection technology, aviation assets, and unity of
effort, and work the type of programs that will deter criminal
activity. That's the only way that you're going to be able to
actually mitigate the risks.
Ms. Acer. Mr. Chairman, could I weigh in?
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired.
We are going to have votes here, so I want to make sure
that other members have a chance to ask their questions.
So let me recognize the gentleman from Michigan for 5
minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks to the panel for being here.
Mr. Judd, a constituent of mine who is a DHS officer
contacted me. He has been working on the border in California.
He expressed concerns about a policy, as he puts it, with
California and Mexico where individuals who cross the border
illegally cannot be sent home but are processed through, and
then released into the U.S. with court dates as long as 7 to 10
years down the road. Are you aware of that policy?
Mr. Judd. Yes, I am. We dub it the catch-and-release
policy. It's extremely disconcerting to all Border Patrol
agencies. If you ask Border Patrol agents, they believe that
it's one of those driving factors that invite individuals to
try to break our ----
Mr. Walberg. Is it unique to California?
Mr. Judd. It is not.
Mr. Walberg. Are all the aliens who cross the border given
notices to appear before the court?
Mr. Judd. No, they're not.
Let me take that back. I'm sorry.
Not all illegal aliens that we arrest are given notices to
appear. There are different factors that go into that. I would
generally say that if we see somebody cross the border, that
that individual would be given a notice to appear, but not all
illegal aliens that we arrest are given notices to appear.
Mr. Walberg. What is the typical time frame for court
hearings?
Mr. Judd. I don't deal with the court hearings. From what
I'm hearing from high-level DHS officials, I'm hearing anywhere
between 5 to 7 years.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. Vitiello? Did I get that right?
Mr. Vitiello. Vitiello, correct.
Yes, I've heard the same thing. It varies by city, and it
varies by the capacity that the Department of Justice has to
schedule and notice those hearings.
Ms. Acer. I'm sorry, can I weigh in on immigration courts,
because we have been recommending--we've just issued a report
on the need to adequately fund the immigration courts to bring
down those backlogs and delays.
Mr. Walberg. So your contention is it is funding?
Ms. Acer. Yes. That's actually a major need, funding for
the immigration courts. Thank you.
Mr. Walberg. Let me ask Mr. Judd, are there any efforts to
keep track of the whereabouts of the individuals that are
awaiting these lengthy time frame court hearings?
Mr. Judd. Not that I'm aware of. All they need to do is
provide us an address, and it can be an obscure address.
For instance, in the mid-2000s, we were arresting a large
number of Brazilians in the Tucson sector. All Brazilians were
giving us--a large number of these Brazilians were giving us
the exact same address.
Mr. Walberg. Large buildings.
Mr. Judd. Exactly. And we were releasing those individuals
based upon the addresses that they were giving us.
Mr. Walberg. I assume this is frustrating to your
colleagues?
Mr. Judd. It is extremely frustrating, but what gets even
more frustrating is when we have a CBP Commissioner that tells
us, if we don't like it, we can go find another job. That's
even more frustrating.
Mr. Walberg. Mr. McCraw, how are the administration's
efforts or enforcement priorities and release policies
affecting your organization?
Mr. McCraw. Clearly, we're concerned. The Governor
expressed his concern about the potential Syrian refugees
coming to Texas. There's no adequate way to properly vet them.
That's a concern from a national security standpoint. He's made
it very clear.
We're concerned that we continue to see transnational
gangs, criminal aliens, cartels, cartel operatives, and drugs,
heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and cocaine infiltrate
Texas, throughout Texas, really throughout the Nation.
Those are the key concerns that we have, and some of the
other related transnational crime that happens when you become
a transshipment center for cartel drug and human smuggling,
including home invasions, including high-speed pursuits,
including stash house extortions, including kidnapping, all
those things that occur and we're having to address in Texas as
a result of it.
And at the end of the day, the border is not secure.
Mr. Walberg. I would assume you have ideas on how to
secure that, and even policies that could be implemented rather
rapidly. If you were allowed, as a State official responsible
for securing your people's safety and borders, could you do it?
Mr. McCraw. I could tell you that this chief right next to
me could do it, if provided the appropriate resources. If
Border Patrol is given the sufficient Border Patrol agents,
that detection technology and the aviation assets, they could
do it today. There is no doubt in my mind they can do it.
Mr. Walberg. So this isn't a problem but for the fact you
are not allowed to do what you are able to do, and I would
assume, Mr. Vitiello, as well.
Mr. McCraw. Well, the problem is it hasn't been properly
resourced over the decades. The bottom line is border security
has not been a priority, not been a concern as it relates to
multiple administrations.
And in today's threat environment, you can't afford not to
be concerned about border security. It impacts Texas from a
public safety standpoint. It impacts us from a national
security standpoint, a homeland security standpoint, and not
just Texas, but the rest of the Nation.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentlemen's time has expired.
We are going to go to Ken Buck for 5 minutes.
Mr. Buck. Mr. Judd, real quickly, 2014, as a result of the
change in the President's policy on immigration, in 2014, we
saw a surge of minors crossing the borders. Is that true?
Mr. Judd. That is correct.
Mr. Buck. Do you know the percentage of those minors that
are from contiguous countries, in other words, Canada and
Mexico, versus noncontiguous countries?
Mr. Judd. Very few. The vast majority of those that are
entering the country are from noncontiguous countries.
Mr. Buck. And how are they treated differently, if a
juvenile from Mexico enters the country versus a juvenile from
El Salvador?
Mr. Judd. If it's a juvenile from Mexico, they're going to
be treated basically the exact same. It doesn't matter what
country you're from. If you claim a credible fear, if you say
that you're seeking asylum, you're going to be treated the same
by the Border Patrol. How ICE treats them, I don't know. But by
the Border Patrol, they're going to be treated the same.
Mr. Buck. Okay, Mr. Vitiello, any different treatment or
process that is used for contiguous versus noncontiguous
individuals?
Mr. Vitiello. So in the case of Mexico and then others
from Central America, both populations would be screened to
make sure that they weren't victims of human trafficking. In
most cases along the border with Mexico, we can facilitate
their return into Mexico with the assistance of their
government.
So the logistics and turning people over to ICE or to be
placed with HHS doesn't necessarily always occur with folks
from Mexico because we have a friendly neighbor, and they'll
facilitate bringing their citizens back, repatriating them.
Mr. Buck. Okay, so there is a legal distinction, though,
between how individuals are treated in contiguous countries
versus noncontiguous?
Mr. Vitiello. The law requires that both--all the
populations are screened, so that they are not victims of human
trafficking, these juveniles. So if they are from noncontiguous
countries, then the law allows for us to do that screening, to
do the booking procedure.
And once we recognize that they are unaccompanied children,
then it's the work of DHS to transfer them to another
government department, the Department of Health and Human
Services, which puts them in a setting to where they can either
be reunited with family in the States or cared for
appropriately given their age.
Mr. Buck. And that's individuals in noncontiguous
countries.
Mr. Vitiello. Correct.
Mr. Buck. But many of those noncontiguous countries, you
use the term ``friendly'' in terms of our relationship with
Mexico. Many of those noncontiguous countries we have a
friendly relationship with also, don't we?
Mr. Vitiello. We do.
Mr. Buck. If the law changed, we could arrange, in the
situation where they are not victims of human smuggling or
seeking asylum, we could arrange for those individuals to be
returned to those countries without going through the 5- to 7-
year hearing process that we now have.
Mr. Vitiello. That would require a change in the law, as
far as I know.
Mr. Buck. Do you see any reason, any adverse effects in
changing that law?
Mr. Vitiello. I'm not sure. I mean, I guess we'd have to
look at exactly what--the contours of that. Certainly, in our
relationship with Mexico, this is a smaller problem.
Mr. Buck. Ms. Acer indicated that all we need is more
money. If we just printed more money, increased our national
debt above the $19 trillion, we could take care of this
problem.
A much simpler solution, a much less costly and, frankly,
much more humane to the individuals that are coming into this
country, would be to change that law and allow those
individuals to return to their homes and set a policy in this
country, frankly, that doesn't attract juveniles like magnets.
I think it would be more humane, rather than putting
someone in limbo for 5 years where they don't know if they are
in this country or not.
I thank the chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman yields back.
The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grothman. I may cover some territory you have already
covered a little bit. But I want, in general, and this is a
question maybe for Mr. Judd and Mr. Ting, in general, how
effective do you believe the administration's commitment to
border security has been? And I also want you compare it,
because I am not a partisan person. I am under the impression
that we were not getting a lot in the past administration
either.
So I guess I would like to even change the question to say,
how sincere has the commitment been both in this administration
and the last administration to border security, which to me is
just a basic part of being a country?
Mr. Ting. Well, I was going to yield to Mr. Judd, but how
serious are they about border security? I think there's a lack
of concern for deterrence. I mean, I think deterrence is an
important part of immigration policy. We will never have enough
resources. We will never have enough Border Patrol agents on
the line, if we don't deter people from attempting to violate
our laws.
So I think deterrence is part of immigration policy, which
has been abandoned by this administration and not been a high
priority of previous administrations.
One of my colleagues said the poor people of the world may
be poor but they're not stupid. They're as good at doing cost-
benefit analysis to determine what's in their best interests as
anyone in this room.
They can figure that out, and they are going to figure it
out.
And if we don't deter people, they're going to figure out
that, hey, you have a better life in the United States. Your
kids go to school for free. There is better security. There are
better job opportunities. You can compete with Americans for
jobs in the United States.
So that fits into the cost-benefit analysis.
We can overwhelm whatever resources we are willing to put
on the border by sending messages that we're willing, like
Angela Merkel, willing to accept unlimited numbers of people to
come and live with us in the United States.
We can do that, and it's not going to matter how much money
we spend on the border and how many Border Patrol agents we put
up.
Mr. Grothman. Okay, so I don't mean to put words in your
mouth, but it seems to me that at least under the last two
administrations, maybe the past three administrations, while
the average American knows we have a Border Patrol and thinks
we have a Border Patrol because we want to have our immigration
laws obeyed, there has not been a commitment for many years in
this country by powerful people who presumably ran and said
that they wanted to enforce immigration laws.
For whatever reason, past administrations of both parties
don't really seem to care that much for enforcing our
immigration laws. I do not know what is going on in their head,
but do you think that is an accurate statement?
Mr. Ting. This is the first election campaign that I can
recall that immigration has been a major issue, that,
historically, I think both political parties have not wanted to
raise immigration because it is such an emotional and divisive
issue. And really for the first time, this year, suddenly
immigration has popped up as an issue.
Now maybe it is the unusual situations we've seen at the
border. Certainly, it's the national security concerns that
we're all feeling. But I think the American people are focused
on immigration and are asking why we are having such
overwhelming problems at our borders, and wanting something to
be done about it.
But I think deterrence is part of it. The administration
has to send a message that we're serious about enforcing our
laws, and that we're going to do the best we can to enforce
them efficiently. And people who are not entitled to be here
ought to expect to be turned around at the border promptly,
getting a prompt asylum interview on the spot, not a credible
fear interview, but an asylum interview. And if they are denied
asylum, they should be turned around immediately.
Mr. Grothman. Mr. Judd?
Mr. Judd. Yes, if you will, what you have to have, Mr.
Grothman, Congressman Grothman, is you have to have agency
officials who are going to tell you the truth--not the truth.
They have to be open. They have to tell you everything.
I will tell you right now that you have a chief patrol
agent right now who has been very open and has given you all
candor. And I fear that because of that openness, because of
that candor, our current acting chief patrol agent is not even
going to be considered for the permanent chief patrol agent,
because quote/unquote, ``He can't be controlled.''
Mr. Grothman. Okay. Thank you.
Before my final 10 seconds, I want to correct Mr. Ting.
I think there are a lot of Republicans who want to enforce
the border, and I think a lot of us are very concerned about
what happened under President Bush and don't want another
person that is anybody like Bush representing our party in the
future. Thank you.
Mr. DeSantis. The gentleman's time has expired.
I want to thank the witnesses. I think that this hearing
was important in fleshing out really some problematic aspects
of our national policy here. We do not have a secured border.
We are inviting threats to our country. And it goes from having
more resources, more physical security, but as Professor Ting
said, you have to have laws that are actually enforced, and
people need to see that, and that will deter a lot of people
coming as well.
I will note, we are going to continue in this vein on this
committee. And in particular, there was a recent report that
ICE had in custody 124 different detainees who were here
illegally that they later released, and that after ICE released
them, they got charged with murder.
So that is the type of thing that had ICE simply done its
job properly, maybe those people would not have been killed in
our country. I think that is an absolute tragedy that that has
happened.
With that, I will thank our witnesses again.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
subcommittees stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:44 a.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
APPENDIX
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]